I agree that Dibbs’ post was not very accurate. I’ve already said that. But that doesn’t mean John’s counterpost “won” the argument by default.
Suppose the exchange had been:
“It’s a fact that CEOs routinely sacrifice kittens to Baal and make their decisions based on reading the entrails.”
“Louise Rainer became the first person to win consecutive Oscars by being named Best Actress for 1936 and 1937.”
You could note that the first statement was false and the second statement is true. But that doesn’t mean that the second statement disproved the first statement. The second statement did not establish the logical connection with the first statement that would make it capable of proving or disproving it.
As for your other point, I will readily concede to it. I was addressing the posts not the people who wrote them.
I think this is the source of the disconnect. I think you are interpreting John’s dismissal in post #12 as him claiming he’s disproved Dibbs’s claim. Au contrair - I think what John was going for was dismissal as unworthy of time, rather than disproving.
More like, someone saying the Earth is flat. If someone said that, I may ask them if they’ve completed a 1st grade level of education. I could ask if they were actually born in the year 1400 and have traveled here by time machine. If they aren’t a time traveller, or have not yet completed 1st grade level education, then I can reasonably conclude the discussion would not be fruitful. The concepts required to understand why the claim is false will not be understandable to such a person. I’m not claiming that I’ve disproved the claim that the Earth is flat - I’m saying the entire discussion is worthless. The question is a qualifier.
Ultimately this whole thing comes down to a conceptual difference in how people think workers should be valued in the workplace. On one side, you have the people who defend the status quo, and that’s basically that everyone should be paid what the market will bear, based on their skills and experience, subject to things like minimum wage laws. The really highly paid CEO is fine under that theory, in that clearly the board perceives these people to be worth that astronomical salary.
The second school of thought is more collective, in that it has a sort of theory that workers are somehow equal in both dignity and in their jobs, and that pay should be a lot flatter as a result, or maybe more like equal profit sharing should be mandatory. This one, to me, seems a little underdeveloped, and more sour-grapesish than anything else. Essentially a variant on the “Crabs in the pot” problem.
There’s also a separate concept going on about the idea that because they’re highly paid, that they should somehow be held more accountable than merely being fired if they underperform. This one also isn’t too developed, and seems to be just outrage that someone can get paid millions of dollars, suck at their job, and just get fired, the same as some minimum wage schlub. Again… sour grapes.
And then he sold it to the market. And then the shareholders and the board asked him to come back and be the CEO. The shareholders elected the board and the board determined how much Jobs should make as the CEO. It wasn’t the customers nor the rest of the workforce or the general public.
Those complaining about CEO pay have as much right to complain about a CEO’s pay, if they aren’t a shareholder, as any of you have a right to complain about the color of your neighbor’s underwear.
Actually, that’s not quite right. A janitor of the malcontent variety has the power to undermine the morale of a company over the course of time by means of using “feelers.”
Bathroom situation: Jim the office worker walks in to pee while Gibbs is removing gum from a urinal.
Gibbs: Morning, Jim.
Jim: Good morning, Gibbs. What’s new?
Gibbs: Not a lot, other than I’ve been thinking about what the new CEO did and I’m just not sure what to think of it.
Jim: Do tell.
Gibbs: Well, I overheard some folks at the time clock this morning grumbling about how she apparently got with her fellow board cronies recently and they determined that she should be rewarded $6.4-million for her contributions.
Jim: Judas priest!! Tell me you’re joking! She’s only been here for six-months and hasn’t done a thing other than have all those silly “A Peak Performer Goes the Extra Mile to Make sure the Job is Done Right” quips plastered all over the frinkin’ place!
Gibbs: That’s what I heard. I guess they feel she’s such a genius that they needed to make sure she doesn’t look for greener pastures.
Jim: My gosh, what’s this world coming to?
Gibbs: You got me buddy, why I’m just a humble janitor. I just hope that we keep our cheerful attitude around here and not let the greed of those filthy disgusting pigs at the top get the best of us, after all, we’re so lucky to even have jobs in these tough economic times.
Purchasing a coffee is not the same as hiring a CEO. The coffee is paid for with your money. The CEO is paid for by the investors and to some extent the people who buy their products. As has been noted already there is a too cozy relationship with the Boards of Directors of many of these companies and they set the salary.
No. Disney made record profits for fiscal 2014 THEN they went and fired their tech staff to replace them with foreign workers. In the meantime the CEO cashed some of his stock options for a hefty sum.
As I said some CEOs are worth their weight in gold.
Apple was turned around by Steve Jobs so Jobs deserves a huge payday. Does Tim Cook who is coasting on the success and inertia left by Jobs deserve a $100 million payday? Sure Apple is doing very well but I submit it has almost nothing to do with Cook and everything to do with Jobs and the legacy he left.
A few weeks ago I asked about U.S. president Warren G. Harding and suggested he presided over a pretty good time in the US so maybe he got an unfair bad rap as one of our worst presidents. The answer was that Harding was not a good president and he just happened to be president when things were going well anyway.
Same kind of idea here.
As for Facebook and Google I have no quarrel with the people who started a company enjoying all the success they can get from it. Zuckerberg is CEO of Facebook and he started it and the CEO of Google is Larry Page who co-founded it. More power to them.
I think the mismatch comes when a CEO turns in a bad performance (as I have noted previously in this thread) and still gets a big payday…not just big but got a raise (see Jamie Dimon).
Or, in an even more tricky way, CEOs can make decisions that can be hugely profitable in the short term while making the company woefully ill prepared for the future (see Dick Fuld). They cash out big time and then retire.
Or worse still, actually destroy the company through likely malfeasance (see Jon Corzine) and still expect an $8 million paycheck. (Corzine was eventually found innocent but people think he is about as innocent as OJ Simpson).
If their salaries were in lockstep with the health of the company over the long term (say ten years) then I’d have little problem with these salaries.
I think the problem is not that they get paid a lot and then get fired, but they get paid a lot, screw up, and then get fired with massive severance packages.
BTW, Bill Gates was worth what he got paid, but is Satya Nadella worth $84 million a year? Maybe wait until he does something useful? Maybe he could scrape by with $20 million a year until then?
The severance packages are part of the negotiation. I have a change-in-control agreement in place in case my company gets bought. That way, if they buying firm does not want me, all of my shares will immediately vest and I get 100% of my bonus, pro-rated. I would not have taken the job without that agreement, and most CEOs do the same.
Its like complaining about public sector pensions - they were part of the original hiring agreement. If you want to eliminate them, you will be paying more in annual costs to compensate.
I don’t see it mentioned above (might be there and I’ve missed it), but it seems like far too many “genius CEOs” work on the principle of taking over, making every change possible to blow the bottom line and stock price through the roof, taking their platinum handshake, and moving on to the next “challenge”… leaving a critically hulled company behind to slowly sink from broken production, manpower, policy and financial choices.
Here in Nwingland, a boy genius took over the power company and kicked its financial performance through the roof… in part by effectively eliminating line-maintenance and tree-trimming, which resulted in widespread disaster (10-day power outages for hundreds of thousands of people, repeatedly). He was blustering about how well he’d done and his performance stats all the way into forced early retirement with only part of his parachute.
“Those are all good comments. But isn’t it true that CEOs merely get data from someone that collected it and then, after pondering it (with a couple of martinis in the belly), they throoow the dice?”
I assume that is the reference. I could be wrong, however.
Microsoft’s market cap is 369 Billion, if Nadella is worth .05% to the stock than the next choice for CEO that is worth 185 million to the stockholders. Why put that at risk for a measly 60 million dollars?
On the day Steve Ballmer resigned as CEO Microsoft stock increased in value by 18 billion dollars. That shows investors think who the CEO is matters alot for Microsoft. Given the tens of billions of dollars involved trying to save 60 million on a CEO seems penny wise and pound foolish.
I still don’t get what sort of standing anyone has to complain about CEO pay. Unless you are a shareholder or a member of the board of directors it’s really none of your business. If you are another employee, then you are just jealous.
The only reason the CEO’s pay of publicly traded companies is made public is for shareholder’s and potential investors to understand how the top members of management are compensated to assist in their investment decisions.
Putting “Isn’t it true” in front of it doesn’t mean it’s not an outlandish comment. It represents a ridiculous notion of what CEOs do, even if you were just asking questions.
I posted this before but if you missed it I will post it again:
So, when 0.01% of the population has the wealth of the bottom 2/3 combined and wages are stagnant and have been for years and jobs are shipped overseas I think it is in everyone’s interest why that 0.1% deserve essentially ALL the benefits while the rest of the population barely holds steady or backtracks.
Oh, and you can see it here that productivity has risen while wages remain stagnant so it is not as if the CEOs are the only ones working hard.
